to order and we will jump right into the uh chair's report. Um you may have noticed we've in the past frequent we've often opened the meeting with open public comment. Um, I want to call out the fact we don't have that
right now because as chair I've put in a very slight change in policy for public comment with the end goal of changing as little as possible. Uh, and the only thing is rather than full open public
comment, we'll still be soliciting public comment as much as we're able and as much as reasonable, both on the things that of course legally require public comment, but this board has never been shy about accepting public comment. Um, the only reason to remove open
public comment is to make sure that the comment we're receiving is topical and relevant to the work of the board. Now, you might say, "But Matt, what if I want what if I want to comment on something that isn't
um that isn't on the agenda? You're not going to talk about, drop me an email." Uh once the planning office is fully staffed, email the planning office. They'll get it on the agenda. But until that's happening, drop me an email. the the I can tell you my
goal is for pretty much everything that comes in, we'll put it on the agenda and if it's something that needs board discussion, we put it in the board discussion section. If it's I want to speak my piece, we'll put it in the beginning. Okay? The goal is not to
stifle public comment. The goal is to make sure it's topical and that we can address it in a way that is most beneficial for everyone involved. So next thing I want to point out is I did say almost everything. What if it's that rare exception that I feel is
inappropriate for the meeting. I want to already tell you the workaround for that because one of the things I actually enjoy doing is telling people how to subvert my plans because that's kind of somewhat how democracy works, right? Um, if you were to come to me and I say,
"Look, that really isn't appropriate for the planning board agenda." I'm not the only person on the planning board. I set the agenda, but go to other members of the board, tell them that it should be on. If I get feedback from the
board, my role as chair is elected by the board. I'm on the board because I'm elected by the town. The chair, the chair role is elected by the board. So, if it's a case where you're saying, "I really want this on the agenda. Matt
said no, and I think that's incorrect." And this would be not just for comment, but for other things, too. Go to the rest of the board. If the if the board is saying, "Hey, we should be looking at this." They're probably right, and I'm probably wrong. We should be looking at this. So,
I want to make sure you know how I I have trouble imagining almost any very few things that would come through that would be an issue and I want to give you that workaround upfront. Um,
okay. I'm just making sure I hit the top. Yeah, those are the one I want to say on that. Um, a couple more chairs report high-end just kind of big items, not big but like I guess not big but just kind of happening not within the framework of
the meeting. Um, I want to let the board know that the open space committee um Mike Tuhill, their chair, has written to me and as part of uh convening the what it was called the town bylaw committee, but really the people who edit the
charter um they are the open space committee would like to move from being an ad hoc committee of the planning board to a standalone committee. Um, and they asked to be on this meeting
given the the the number of highprofile like big things we need to work through. I asked them to move to our first meeting in November. So, uh, Mike will be joining us for the first meeting in November to have that discussion, but I want to let us know that's up and coming.
And I don't know every detail of how that would look yet. That's why we're going to talk about it. Can I put in a request that we rewrite all those zoning bylaws >> from zero? >> Like >> like just scrap the whole thing and start again >> like while Mike's here.
>> No, like as for the bylaw review committee. >> Oh. Oh, like Oh, you don't mean Well, >> cuz that that's the bylaw and it needs to be changed. So I I admit this is where this is the first time that I've been in a position of relevance in town
in the bylaw committee has convened and I was kind of surprised right because I'm like we planning board puts forward good handful of bylaw changes every year and the way it was explained to me is this more charter Adam you have more
experience of that with that than I >> Well if it's the charter I've got other things too >> that's fair well they are meeting Okay. Well, >> they are doing things and I >> Yes, I in fact I agree and would love to do a full groundup zoning rewrite. I don't know if that's within the time
frame of what the committee is doing, but uh yeah, I I you and I have talked about that individually before and I agree with that. um logic behind that, by the way, just cuz people are going, why would the people in planning not like why would they want
to scrap all of our zoning bylaws and redo it? The answer is because it's like a New England house, right? You got your tiny little old colonial. The next generation adds a room. The next generation adds a floor. Then they kind
of add a porch. And at some point, you've got this really charming structure that maybe doesn't work as well as a house anymore. And it's kind of this ramshackle amalgam. They're charming. I love that. That's how my house is put together. Maybe not the
best model for our laws, though. And there's a time you look at it and say, "Let's take all these good ideas we've had over the years and put them back together in a way that makes sense because things might reference each other incorrectly and it's often
sometimes better just to build from the ground up. Um, burn it down. >> The other detail I just wanted to uh tell people is if you were to swing by the planning office um well with Jen Dagel having left, it's not occupied
currently. Um but that means construction. They began with we're going to be in Ritter at least 5 years, right? Uh before we can get a new municipal building plan together and then before
construction would possibly be done on such a building. 5 years minimum. To that end, um the planning office besides getting a fresh coat of paint like the restorator is, it looks real nice. um not much, but just based on feedback
from multiple admin assistants over the past several years, they're putting in they're more delineating the space of where the admin assistant is with a counter and a little bit of a of a semi height wall to basically because the
handy the accessible entrance is through there to make everything a little nicer, a improve flow better. um just make the whole place more inviting too. So that will be nice. And if no one is currently working in the
office, this is the time to do it. That is all I have for the chair's report. Okay, come back to my agenda. Okay, next up on our agenda for the meeting
would be an approval not required an AN which is still a funny name an ANR for 9:30 Massav. So uh do we have any is anyone in the room for that or is there someone online
for the ANR for 9:30 Massav? >> Uh I am here sir. Okay, great. Please take it away. >> Uh, my name is Mike Dolberg. I am the land surveyor that prepared this plan for >> Oh, I'm gonna ask you to pause for one
minute. Not for you. Is that volume is that a little garbled for other Yeah. It's a little It's a little low. >> Um, uh, in the booth, can you raise that volume a little bit >> right now? >> Okay, let's go ahead and try again.
My name is Mike Dahlberg. I am the land surveyor that prepared this plan for Unatil/Fitchburg Gas and Electric. And they are purchasing some surplus land from Gail Oakman
uh adjacent to their substation which sits um south of Massachusetts Avenue behind her her house. And um it is a separate tract that she purchased uh
years ago and uh that would be absorbed into the unit piece map 71 lot 64 and um we asking for uh your signature on this uh so um Unatil can move forward
with their plans for their uh expanded substation. >> Okay, great. could you uh talk us through the plans just a little bit in terms of what's being rem what's being moved? >> So, um and I've got the plan up on the
screen as you can probably see and if you need me to move the view at all, just let me know. >> Okay. Um so, uh Gail Oakman will retain uh 2.89 8 n acres adjacent to her house
with direct access to Massachusetts Avenue. And that lot complies with the uh with the zoning in terms of minimum size and lot width at at the structure and the back land uh which is labeled partial A on that sheet one a little
lower down um Yep. to the south of the the stone wall directly adjacent and west of the existing substation as indicated as map 71 lot 64.
uh that acreage partial A would would be conveyed to UNIL and it's 3.95 acres and that extends southernly
to map 71 lot 63 and map 71 lot 62 um about 500 ft north of West Street and that would again attach to the current um
Pittsburgh Gas and Electric property which which runs to West Street which is shown on sheet two which is this plan correct or no I wrong one my apologies separate pages >> the second page of the other plan
>> yeah it is sorry my mistake >> no no no problems um yeah so that's uh the uh that Unitil owns a strip uh that runs from their substation down to West Street and they are looking to pick up again
parcel A from Oakman um so they can you know work their substation expansion. >> All right, questions from the board? >> Nope. Um
my my only is that a 40 is that a 40 foot frontage on West Street? Does it? But I guess that's not changing. So >> correct. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. Um I I'm going to ask I'm going to ask a couple a couple questions that we do ask
typically of all of our applicants. And um they're not going some of these questions aren't nec or really I think the one the big one I'm going to ask doesn't affect our decision up here for those watching out here on
an ANR for the board to endorse it. There's very specific legal requirements. However, because we're only allowed to look at very specific legal requirements, we've had applicants in the past make problems for themselves
where they divide up the law in a way that is technically legal but messes up other plans they have. So, we often we generally ask applicants to do certain things and get feedback. The feedback's irrelevant. We ask them to do it because
we just want to make sure they get that feedback. So, we're trying to prevent an issue. I'm not worried about this with Unatil, frankly, but I want to be thorough like we always are. Um, have you reached out to the board of health on this? Uh, we have. We are doing a
title five inspection um on the Oakman House um on the scheduled for Friday. Um and and I am also a licensed septic designer and the the lot area around the
Oakman house and the soil type is more than adequate to handle that septic load. And I I firmly believe that what we're doing here will not affect that ability whatsoever. >> Great. Um and again, he could have said,
"Yeah, we did and it's awful." and we're not we're not allowed to consider that, but it's kind of start some conversations. Great. If there's no other questions from the board, >> um to endorse,
>> I would look for a motion such as to um endorse the ANR for 9:30 Massav. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I I rock and roll. You're all set. Do
you have a representative here tonight? >> Uh there was supposed to be somebody from >> UNL. >> I I I see in the back. Perfect. Then what we're going to do is we're going to sign that um myar right now and hand it to you. Okay. >> Oh, that's awesome.
>> Great. Thank you. ANR is all set. Let's get that myar out of the way. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. >> Holy paper, Batman. I grabbed it the first time. Yep. >> Proud of myself. >> Brian wanted to make sure we were
equipped, so sent us everything we might need. I'll sign two, but that Yep. >> like three forest worth of paper copies. >> We still have some of those requirements. um the multiple paper copy requirement on the books. And that's one
of the things that the boards once we have a full-time planner, one of the things we want to do is we've moved digitally so much we can trim we've trimmed that list of number of paper copies in the past, but this way we can trim it more. Where is the There we go.
>> This is vaguely. Okay. >> And we can hand that signed myar to our That's not this. >> No, that's just the transfer. >> No, that's just No, just the one the signed myar sheet. Nothing else. >> Oh, just the sign. >> Yep. >> Cuz the rest is ours. >> Back.
>> Oh, no. I I one of the reasons we do this in ANR has a 21 has a 21-day turnaround window. It's one of the shortest we have by statute. So we try to bring the myar with us, get it signed, give it to the
applicant right away. I mean, in part because it's one of those things that if we don't do everything we have to within 21 days, they they just they get it's considered an approval anyway. So rather than make them wait in case we forget to
sign or it's hard to get people in, sign it, get it taken care of. All right. They buy these chairs for the Lollipop Guild. >> Thank you. I'm gonna because I'm running the Zoom and screen sharing tonight. I'm switching between a few windows. So, do give me a moment
just as I hop back and forth. We have three public hearings. Oh, good. I lost my second screen, so I unplugged it. That's not I'll fix. Um, we have uh three public hearings
tonight. The first of which is for 255 Sunny Hill Road for a storm water permit. And then we have our public hearings for the MBTA communities bylaw and um a very quick change to our um
common driveways bylaw. So, first of course we'll hit the 255 Sunny Hill Road. >> I just have to pull up the uh >> Oh, I have if you want I have that here on my computer. you. I will take it.
>> Um, >> if you put it next to uh the podium, the camera can pick it up and the folks in the audience can see it on screen and at home. >> Okay. >> So, sort of angle it towards the >> Yeah. So, >> the stage a little bit. >> Yeah. So, point There you go.
>> Yeah. Perfect. >> Um, and uh let me get the language on that. Amanda, do you want to hop over to my mic and read it just because it's on this screen? >> We can kick my stuff out of the way, too. >> All good. Uh, the Lunberg Planning Board
will hold a public hearing on Monday, October 27th, 2025 at 6:05 p.m. Town Hall 17 Main Street, Lunberg, Mass to hear and review an application for storm water management permit PBS-25-4 uh 204-1
of the code of the town of Lunberg by Justinair of McCarti Engineering. Subject property information. The location is at 255 Sunny Hill Road. Assessor's map, parcel number 92, lot 35.
Owner is MCSW220 LLC at 69 Broad Street in Hollis, New Hampshire 03049. Materials are available at the planning office at 960 Mass Avenue in Lunberg, Mass.
Excellent. Thank you very much. Uh, good evening. I am Patrick McCarti. I'm the president of Mccardi Engineering. Here tonight, as was just read, to present the storm water management permit for um the lot on Sunny Hill. The This lot has
a little bit of a storied history as I I believe you're aware. This was originally um filed in conjunction with the um three other lots fronting on Sunny Hill that were created through the ANR process. Um unfortunately there was
um couple board members that couldn't initially vote and then when they were able to vote we ended up in a two to2 tie and so that effectively denied the permit. Essentially nothing has changed since uh we were here in 2024 for that uh with
one very minor except uh exception here and here. There are two um drainage pipes that discharge onto this site from the abuing property. We weren't originally aware of that because they were covered over with leaves and brush from you know years of uh the changing
season. So, we've since located those, added them to the site plan, and we have coverts proposed underneath the proposed driveway so that flow can continue as it does today to the wetlands that are on the uh left hand side of the page.
So, this has been um through the ANR process. So, it is its own lot. It has been approved by conservation commission. It was peer-reviewed by Graves Engineering last year as part of the 2024 application. Um, we did receive
a letter back from Graves at that time that all comments had been addressed and that the design is in conformance with the town's regulations. It also went through, as I mentioned, the conservation commission process. It was also peer-reviewed at that time by Goddard Consulting and an order of
conditions has been issued. So, the work is typical single family house construction. We have some tree clearing. We have some grading. We have a house footprint and a new driveway and a new walkway to the front of that to mitigate the storm water increase on the
site. We have a keystone diaphragm that lines the low side of the driveway. So on your right as you were driving in from Lemonster Road and we have an um infiltrate a small infiltration basin here proposed on the side of the
driveway for the storm water uh to control the storm water. So Brian Marcetti and Justin did submit on September 22nd an application that goes through a little bit of the history on the site and also submitted a drainage
narrative that explains how we are in conformance with the bylaw. I don't know that the board wishes me to dive too deep into that, but essentially the light green area is the area of the site that would be cleared and regraded. The
dark green um to the north of the house is existing woods to remain. So pretty minimal footprint driveway in from the street. It comes down from Lemonster Road to a low point, then back up to the house. And so the storm water obviously follows that same grading scheme. Happy
to answer any questions or elaborate on any of these points, but we're hoping that the board uh votes to issue the storm water permit this evening. >> All right. Um, and I would just let the board know that I did review the previous um, peerreview letter from
Graves Engineering and it because that was my memory as well and that is correct. Graves did say that there were no issues with the plan as presented tonight. >> Okay. Uh, so the tax collectors noted that taxes are owed for 25 and 26. Is that
accurate? Have they been has that been resolved? I'm not aware of that. >> I don't know, but it can get resolved. >> Okay. Because we we can't issue a permit while there are taxes owed on the property. >> Um >> my
additional concerns are you do have increases in peak rate. They are dimminimous, but it's across every storm event. >> Um so it makes me wonder if there's a
way to change the design, whether increasing the rain garden or the Keystone diaphragm or some grading that will eliminate this AC at least across some of the more common storm events. uh
we're seeing more frequent higher intensity storms and if we're seeing increase of peak rate of dimminimous change in every house that we build that becomes not dimminimous very quickly. >> Mhm. Um, has there been a peer review,
Matt, on the two new pipes that were added and the conveyances that were uh designed under the driveway? Because I'd want to ensure that we know what the hydraulic flow from them is and that those two culverts are appropriately sized. Um,
>> uh, there there has not been a new peer review. No, there is only there is the old peer review. Okay. Right. >> Based on the very similar plans, but with those differences, you know, those are differences. Yes. >> During that hearing process is when we were made aware of that. Obviously, you
couldn't see it if you were walking the site. So, they were accounted for in that original design as well as the rates of runoff were in the original design that Graves did peer review on the board's behalf. >> The the rates of runoff from those pipes? >> No, the rates of runoff from our proposed development that you just
mentioned. >> I understand, but I wasn't on the board then and I'm looking at it now. And our bylaw says that we're not supposed to allow for increase in peak rate. There's an increase in peak rate and I'm inquiring if there's a way for you to
sharpen your pencil and reduce that peak rate at least in the more frequent storms. I think dimminimus is a subjective standard. And while I can agree that, you know, a point4 CFS increase may be
dimminimous in a 100red-year storm, if that 100red-year storm is happening not every hundred years, but every 6 months, that can create a potential issue. And as for the culverts, I think it's important that we ensure that they're
appropriately sized because if they're not and the driveway starts washing out, then we've approved something that creates a financial hardship and an environmental concern for the homeowner and for the town. Mhm.
I I understand that you weren't on the board at that time and I I imagine you read the cover letter so you can see the history of how we got to where we are and and frankly a denial at that time by that board because they didn't like the
current regulations is >> that's a first for me in 25 years of doing this. Right. So, um, >> I disagree with you and I'm not I just don't want to relitigate. >> I just I don't want to I don't want to in So, my client has suffered because of
the actions of the board. And I get it that it wasn't this board, but it was still actions of the town of Lunberg. We've we've suffered the delay and the the cost and everything that goes along with that bad decision. >> And you had a remedy through the legal system which you chose not to take.
You've chose to refile permit. refiled based on the peerreview that was said this is good last September. Grace Gray's two issued two letters on two separate occasions that says no further comment. This meets our meets the town's regulations. So that's what we're
hanging our hat on. It would be unfortunate to to reopen that now and have the expense of another Graves peerre and additional time delay for the applicant when they got honestly served a raw deal the first time they came before the board.
>> Again, you had a remedy through the legal system at that time. You chose not to exercise it. I'm not going to put my vote to approve this without understanding that those culverts are appropriately sized. Yeah. Again, I can probably find a way that the CFS
increase may be dimminimous. Again, I think it would be >> great if we could find a way to >> we also have a legal remedy for those two culverts because they're they're discharging onto property that they don't own. >> Okay. >> Right. But we're trying we could have we
honestly after the denial last time, of course, we reached out to an attorney on our client's behalf at their request and they said, "What do you think?" his his words back. Slam dunk. >> Okay. >> But they didn't choose to litigate with the town, nor are they choosing to litigate with the abutter. They're
trying to do right by the project and saying, "Okay, their water's been going there. We'll let it keep going there. We'll just provide culverts under the under the driveway." >> And that's fine. I >> We're confident based on our design and our stamp that's on the plan that those are adequate.
I would like the town to have a review that confirms that. >> Now, do we have um what I'm wondering and you would know this more from your experience as a
planner than it sounds like our peer review needs may be more specific this time. Am I hearing that? Yeah, I have a very specific concern about the sizing of the culvert. I don't think it's an entire relitigation of the project. I think
it's a here's the project that was done. The information hasn't changed. This addition was added and this is the flow from these culverts. >> Are we able to send only the key questions forward? >> We're not so trying to save you.
>> I appreciate that and I I do. So, one is a 4-in foundation drain, perimeter drain, right? And the other one is from a drain that they installed in their yard. We didn't do any sizing. We simply took the size of their pipes
to the 4 in and I believe it's a 10- in on the uphill side. And we simply said extend those to the other side of our driveway. We're not changing the incoming flow conditions. We're not >> varying the pipes and running them under the driveway. >> It's all we're doing. >> Okay. The way the way you explained it,
I >> No, no. Extend exist existing drain, extend existing 4in drain. All we're doing is taking them where they discharged and bringing them to the other side of our driveway. >> And were was the outflow from those modeled in your original? >> No, cuz they do not go they don't go
into our rain garden. They go direct to the resource area where they currently go. So they don't impact our storm water. We're not we have nothing to do with the flow that's coming through them. We're simply making them 30 ft longer.
Then I guess I wouldn't call it a culvert. I would call it an extension of the pipe because okay >> to me culvert says you're >> installing an open-ended pipe that's extending those across. Again is a much different condition in my opinion than >> Yeah, my mistake. We do have a culvert
here that's always been on the plan where that >> kind of open swale runs. Um, and what are what's the material for those pipes that you're intending to install?
>> The one is um the lower one, the f perimeter drain, that's 4 in. I would >> No, no. Material >> plastic. >> Okay. I would like them to be um sheathed in concrete as they uh traverse
the driveway. All right. >> So, put an RCP and you can run the plastic through it or have the plastic marry into an RCP if it's going to be >> 4 in. They don't make 4 inch RCP.
>> Okay. Then I'm or HDPE is are they HDPE or they they PVC? >> The lower one is 4 in PVC. typical foundation drain perforated pipe that you put on every foundation. >> The upper one, I believe, is already HDPE.
>> Okay. >> Do you know for a fact it is? >> I'd like them both to be HDPE if you're going to put them under the driveway. >> Sure. I I disagree with your logic on the the schedule 35 is actually a a more durable pipe in my opinion for the 4 in.
But if that's your opinion, >> I just I've seen too much PVC break under driveways. >> It's a schedule. >> That's fine. >> 80. >> That's fine. >> What we always put on the job. >> That's fine. >> Okay. You know what?
>> All right. Um >> obviously we can't act tonight because we the taxes we weren't aware of that until this evening. >> Um we can resolve that. And is the um is the concom permit in the portal? I don't think I
saw it. The um >> order conditions. >> Order conditions. Yeah. >> Yeah, that was issued. >> I know it was issued. Is it? We don't have a copy of it. >> Oh, in this permit portal. >> Yeah. >> No, but we can certainly upload that. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Um and your um this is curiosity questions. I don't know that necessarily is applicable to the storm water permit. Uh what's the riverfront disturbance on the lot? >> Oh, there's no work within the 100. I don't
>> It's all outer repairarian. >> It's all outer repairarian. >> Do you is it the theund sorry the 100 foot riverfront area? >> Correct. So, the whole thing is in the 200, >> correct?
>> And you stayed under the 10% for the entire lot for all four together. Um, and the driveway is a wetland crossing, correct? thought I thought in plans aren't always
easy to read on the uh the computer, but if I remember correctly, it it there's some replication necessary. >> No. >> Oh, there's wetland replication. >> Yeah, Patrick, there is >> there is. Yep.
>> Do we know what that square footage is? No, like like I said, it was July of 2024 that that the commission approved and issued the order. >> Okay. >> And they waved the the work and the no touch.
That wasn't uh Brian and Justin that work for me handled that, but I know that an order was issued and has been >> Yeah, I would like if you could upload the the order. So, I mean, I guess my biggest thing is I would like to um the taxes to be paid and to see the the
order that was issued. >> Okay. >> Yep. Can handle that. >> And if you could upload the Graves um letter to the portal, that would be helpful as well. >> Uh absolutely. I'm going to add that to my notes as well.
making sure I have those complete. Okay. Um I am going to take this moment. This is a public hearing. I'm going to see if we have any public comment on this. If you are at home and have public comment on Zoom, do use that hand raise feature.
So, I know and I can make sure to uh call on you. Come on up, Anna. And you know the rigomear for public meetings >> Anna Lockwood 91 Main Street. Um so I don't like this lot at all uh where
they're building. There's a lot of wet land there. It's it's incredible to me that they're able to squeeze another property there. And the comment that I'll make is that the previous speaker, he he was not happy with the board's
decision from last year, but now that Adam's questioning him, he's also not happy that he's been asked new questions. So, you got to pick one. We live on the on the decision of the past or is Adam Bernie allowed to ask the questions and have his concerns
addressed. So, thank you, Adam, for bringing your concerns to light and I think you're very well justified. Even if they have to do another review, it's not your burden, it's their burden, and if they want to be with the burden from last board, the last board made a
decision. So, >> all right. Thank you, Miss Lockwood. Any other public comment? Uh Kenneth Patton, 290 Lemonster Road. >> Uh Christopher Halbut, 469 Sunny Hill Road.
>> Okay. Um where where are Butters to the site? Um Mr. Chairman, you've been to my my lot. I've walked you around the lot. Um,
you know, I and I just heard about complaining that their uh application was uh denied back in uh August of 2024.
And I just would remind you that they were going to dig up in my backyard. Do you remember that? >> Uh lightly. Yes. You say it, it refreshes it. I I I remember the walk. I remember all sorts of aspects. I I can't
I'm not going to say I remember every detail. >> Okay. That 6 in green pipe that goes from my catch basin. >> I showed you where that was and we looked at where they were going to dig up. It was 40 ft and it was on my
property. Mhm. >> And so that's why I mean their their design was flawed. That's why it was denied. So let's be clear why it was denied. It was
properly denied. Um so at any rate, we're the abutters and we um we will be the most impacted by this project. I do have to say that
uh I consider this a considerable improvement and I think Chris does too over the last design that was going to uh dig up my backyard.
Um uh we really were just made aware of the latest plans by the developer um because of the notice to the abutters. >> I I'm going to apologize for interrupting. I did not hit the
recording button at the start. >> So I >> recording in progress. >> Um they're still taping. So my apologies. Go on. Okay. So, um, so we found we found out about the the
status of the project. I always knew it would come back around, but we found out the status about a week ago. So, here we are tonight. Um, uh, the developer has not sought our approval or agreement
um, regarding the latest plan. And I just mentioned that they're going to tie on to our pipes and um previously I did not object to to the project. I over over all the meetings
that we had I got up and I just tried to clarify um just I just tried to clarify different aspects about my property. Anytime I had an opportunity to talk to the designer, the contractor,
conservation, planning, I did. I was up front. Um, those two pipes, the 4-in foundation drain and the and the 6-in catch basin drain were installed in the 1980s.
there was no boundary there at that time or there was no property line. So, we just ran over to uh the approximate location and dumped those two pipes out. So, I apologize
that they discharged on the Abutter's property, but that's how it happened. Um so it you know it it to us it's important that they coordinate with us. Now during the previous meetings from
last year, I had stood here and s and and said, "Well, gee, instead of digging up my backyard, couldn't you just extend the 6-in pipe instead of putting in some kind of a structure and all this stuff?"
So, um, now we get the, uh, the plan and that's what they're doing. Well, okay, I'm good with that. But how about the elevations? Are they are they just doing this because I suggested
it and then when it doesn't work right well, you suggested it that that's your problem. And are they going to send me a bill for this? And that get that goes to a whole another issue because in January
of this year, the the um the developer sent the two of us a nasty threat, a nasty letter threatening a lawsuit. And I heard
a sixf figureure lawsuit. And I heard just a few minutes ago that the the contractor decided not to proceed with litigation against the homeowner.
I assume that's he's talking about me. Well, nobody ever told me that or Chris that. As far as we're concerned, this nasty letter is still on the table. We responded to this and they did not
respond back. So, it's just in limbo. So, I'm worried that this is still on the table and I'm worried that they're going to send me a bill for anything they do.
That's all I have to say about that. Um, you know, we want to be reasonable. I've had a lot of communications with everybody involved. They're all likable people. You get out in the field, they're all likable people.
I admire contractors. They're they they're trying to get their job done. I understand. But don't send me this, please. Um, so at any rate, what we want is if they
are going to tie onto our pipes, we want them to coordinate with us to explain to us that, hey, the the the elevations are going to work out. And oh, by the way, um
the plan doesn't show the uh the spring. There's a spring right on the property line. And um so at any rate, there's been a lot of discussion about the spring. I think that's why things got
confused and they were gonna dig up my property 40 feet from where the pipe actually is. So, um, at any rate, we what what our requests are, we have a
few requests here, is that, um, that the contractor designer share with us specifically how his plan impacts our properties. Itemize the plan, the plan's use of our
systems such as drains and pipes. uh provide acceptable upfront written release uh of these meritless claims that have threatened against us
um all of which are a lot of money. You know, if it if it wasn't for these threats, I wouldn't even be here talking. I would just let this go through. But um you know, here I am.
Thank you. Anything else, Chris? >> So, again, I'm Christopher Hall at 469 Sunny Hill Road. So, I'm Ken's neighbor and I'm another a butter to the the property in question. Um, I just wanted to take a couple seconds just to
reiterate and hit on some of the the key points that Ken said. Um, so we have not been made aware of the changes to the plan. Okay. So, this is sort of the first we're hearing about it. are trying to catch back up. Um, it certainly involves sort of tying into the the
pipes and the things that are on the on or near the property line. Um, and you know, the developer also hasn't sought out our approval, our agreement. It's like almost like we've been bystanders up until this point. Um, and we again
can mention this, the the threat of the lawsuit has been looming for probably the better part of the year now. And that's not to be taken lightly. Um, you know, there's these are six figure damages we're talking about. This isn't a few thousand dollars, right? This is a
significant amount of money. Um, and we feel that these claims are absolutely baseless and meritless. Um, and like Ken said, we're reasonable people. We want to do what's right. Um, but at the same time, we are asking
the planning board here to defer the approval. And it sounds like it was going to be deferred anyways for a few other reasons, but we're asking the planning board to defer the approval of this >> until we have a chance to work out cuz we we want at least two things to happen
here. We want clarity on what the details of the plan are and how it's going to impact our properties as well. >> It's just an understanding and clarity, right? because again this is the first time we've seen this plan. And the second thing is we want
a written agreement that if we approve and agree to this plan and and move on so everybody can move forward. We want written agreement that all these threats of lawsuits and damages and six figure
digits like they go away. I think that's it. Great. >> I want to >> thank you very much. >> I want to understand, Mr. Chair, what the concern is about impact to the Abutters properties
like what what impacts are you concerned about? So for for either of the abutters? >> Yeah. Well, um the change they're going to make to to to the my two pipes, those pipes belong to me. One of them is my
foundation drains. Um when I first purchased the property uh over 40 years ago, uh I moved in, water was bubbling up through my my cellar floor. So me and another guy, I won't get too wordy here.
We rented a a jackhammer. We jackhammered three 60 foot long trenches. We hand dug it out and we we put in some stone and some pipe and we ran it over, you know, just to get my foundation drain.
>> I understand what a foundation drain is. What are you concerned is going to be the impact to your property? Yeah. >> Um the just that these pipes have the proper elevations so that they flow. >> Okay. So you keep saying they're your pipes and you understand that they're on
his property. >> Right. >> So you're asking him for approval to do work on his own property from you. >> On my pipes, >> but they're his pipes because possession is 9/10en the law. They're on his
property. So he could just cut them off, bury them at the property line and move on or you can work with him in a reasonable way. I I understand that you want to understand this plan and I think that makes sense. I think that's reasonable.
But you're that those pipes are on his property and so they he purchased that property. I am sure it says with all buildings and easements and these pipes would be the pertinent so they become
his pipes. I also want to be clear my position is this board has no authority over any civil legal action between private property owners. We cannot hold up a
permit based on a desire or a want to eliminate any civil legal action. That is completely outside of the town's jurisdiction. That's two private parties or three private parties having their own
discussion. I understand your concerns. Um I would invite you to review these plans. I don't know what your background is. I don't know what your ability to read plans are uh but they do depict
that the outlet for both pipes is at least 5 ft below the elevation of your property line. So I I am I failed physics in high school but my understanding is water
doesn't run uphill. So you can take some solace in that. Um, I haven't had a great chance to review uh if they have a section of the elevation of that pipe. I think that would be a reasonable thing for this
board to request um so that we could understand what the pitch of that pipe is. Uh but it's it's traveling uh I just lost it. It looks like it's it's traveling
probably somewhere between 60 and 80 feet and it's going down five feet. So that's 12. So what is that about about an 8% pitch? Again, not a mathematician, but
um so 8% pitch is is pretty good and it's going to keep that water moving. Um I think those are reasonable things for you to want to understand. Um, but I also want to be clear that those the outlets to those pipes are on the applicant's property and he can do work
on his property as he wishes. Now the previous history I wasn't involved in so I can't speak to that but the legal aspect I don't think we have a role in u. So, I would encourage you and the
applicant to have a conversation between now and our next meeting, which is >> on the um >> 10th. >> 10th. >> 10th. Thank you. >> So, two weeks. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. That that would have been my response as well. So, um if there's any other uh uh comments from the public, we're happy to answer. If not, we would obviously request a continuence till the
next meeting so that we can straighten things out with the collector tomorrow. And then in the meantime, Justin will upload the order of conditions to the portal so that's available for the board to review. >> Okay, great. Um, I just want to take I
want to look out again and see do we have any other public comment. Seeing none here or in Oh, Mr. Patton, uh, just one other comment um on on the approval for the from the conservation commission. the um the
property line has shifted. There's been a change in the property line. Uh it's moved uh 8.8 ft away from my property and I found out about that from the surveyor that came and correct
made the correction. So I had a conversation with uh Mary Wilson. That was just uh um just a phone conversation and she said because of that change in the property line they would have to um
go back to the conservation commission. >> So um >> can you clarify what you mean by the property line moved 8 ft away from your property >> was going to be my question. So, if uh just the I'm talking about the
property line between my lot and um the developers lot right here. Okay. And you see these three those those three property lines the way
they come in there's a little squiggle there. Well, if you look at the drawing from uh August 20, the the vote on August 26, 2024,
you'll see that the property line is further away from my driveway and it it impacts it impacts the amount of replication that contractor has to do or it might. I
I you know, I can't say it does, but the property property line moved 8.8 ft. That's what the surveyor told me. Uh he gave me an updated he gave me a drawing that just showed where it is now and
where it had been. So So the property line moved. If you if you compare the um the two plans, you'll see the property line is further away from my driveway.
And it's real easy to see if you look at that tree that's up near Lemonster Road. Um it's right up here at the at the property line. It shows up on the plan that I downloaded, but there's the the property line goes right through that
tree. And from the the drawing from last year, >> it goes near the road >> near my driveway. >> The I can um I do have the I do have the
previous uh file available on my computer. If you want me to screen share it, >> that would be great. >> Okay, wonderful. While I can do that, me just prep that a little bit. That's all I have. So, Adam, what I'll And for those
looking at home, here, do you see my mouse? >> You're not sharing it. >> Okay. Here is the tree that Mr. Patton is mentioning as a reference point. And the squiggle um that Mr. Patton was referencing. If
you follow the property line down here, uh, on these plans, they appear to, it appears to be three straight lines meeting at a point. >> I will switch to the current plan. And you can see
that they on these plans the property line passes through that tree and the three lines do not seem to con convene at one point. Mhm. >> The the reason it changed is because the new plan shows a stone boundary
um where the three three lots come together. If you look at the old plan, there's no stone boundary. Okay? And the reason that so this the surveyor had never found that stone boundary
and uh and then I pointed it out to him and that's how the correction got made. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Pton. >> We agree. >> Okay. Could you say that into the microphone, please? >> Yeah,
we we do agree with that. And uh the current plan that's before you reflects that. Okay. It >> doesn't have an impact on the design, just that the property line moved. >> No. Worth us worth us understanding what's going on there.
>> Does it change the square footage of >> the lot being applied for? >> Um, what do you need to change? Well, if the property line moved 8 feet in one direction, is it a we had it incorrectly
located geospatially or was it assumed that that 8 ft by I I'm all parking 180? >> First, it was >> it's just geospatially different. Yeah. >> Um,
so it doesn't impact your replication numbers, your riverfront percentage or your setback from wetlands. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, >> maybe I should just stay. >> Uh, yeah, I know it's hard. >> I don't believe so, but I'll ask Brian tomorrow to verify that it doesn't
impact >> any of those conservation related. Not that we can't approve without conservation, but if we approve and you have to go back to them and they want you to change it, just you get stuck in a loop. >> So, >> I don't believe so based on my conversations with both of them this
afternoon, but I'll verify and one of them will send correspondence to you. >> And if you do need to speak while referencing your plans, I can ask the booth to bring out another microphone. We do have battery operated ones for the table. >> No. So, if you're >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> If you find yourself in that position,
say the word. They they're happy to bring it out for us. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> Pack is wonderful. Um All right. Okay. Uh look at see. So any other public comment
hearing? None. I will turn to the board and say, do we have any further questions? for the applicant before uh they've said they'd like they would look for a continuence to our next meeting. But do we have other questions first? Uh no, I
I will consider the the PVC if they want to submit something a spec sheet for it going under the driveway. The applicant seems as if that's what he'd prefer to use. So, um if you want to give us something, uh I I'm not opposed to to continuing
the PVC. Right. Do you have uh I'll turn to the applicant and ask do you have any questions of the board and what the board is is likely looking for. Try to make sure that everyone has all the information they need. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I
believe we're good. And um like I said, we'll square away the tax issue. I did receive a text message from the applicant and he said there's actually some confusion with the lot lines. So, it's not as simple as going and paying. It's getting it correct in the assessor system. So, he'll follow up
on that tomorrow. >> Okay. >> Um and then we'll verify the conservation numbers haven't changed as a result of the property line change and we'll upload a copy of the order of conditions and send
that to send an email note that those have been uploaded to the portal and the pipe material. >> Great. We all So, sounds good out there. We good up here. >> Great. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> In that case, uh, and you'd like our first meeting in November, correct?
>> Yes. >> November 10th. Okay. >> I would look for meet uh a motion such as to continue this public hearing for 255 Sunny Hill Road for the storm water permit to our meeting on November 10th,
2025 at 6:05 p.m. >> So moved. >> Second. moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I I >> Thank you very much. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. So, we have two more public hearings
ahead of us tonight. One is for MBTA communities bylaw change and one is for common driveways. I am going to assume that the common driveways has fewer people looking to speak. If you are here
to speak exclusively for common driveways, could you give me a wave right now? Uh that is not surprising. It's literally eliminating one sentence. But in case I misread the room.
All right. Um now these are two separate do these public hearings Adam might ask you >> they are separate yes >> and they have to be open separately correct or can we open them together >> the way it's written it's both of them together >> that but that is for that that is oh
>> no that wording is >> wrong >> that wording is because it lets us put in out only one ad even though the separate public >> I would open them you can open them together they can run concurrently It's fine.
>> Okay, great. That that would be uh easy. Um no, that basically that lets us save money getting the ad in the ledger. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, that came out like real. >> All right,
>> madame uh clerk, please go ahead. >> Clerk. Okay. Uh, the Lunberg Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Monday, October 27th, 2025 at 6:05 p.m. Town Hall 17 Main Street in Lunenburgg, Mass to make a recommendation to annual
town meeting 2025 to the code of the town of Lunenberg, Mass to conform with the MBTA communities compliance zoning amendment 250-4.19 multifamily
overlay district MGC no sorry MGLC 40A 3A and to make an amendment to the code of the town of Lunenburgg, Mass 250-6.4
C7 C6 by removing bituinous concrete requirement from common driveways. Is that right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh you can view materials uh via an email request to the planning
office planning lunenbergmma.gov. gov or in person at the planning office at 960 Mass Avenue in Lunberg. >> Rock and roll everybody. This is it. Um uh my goal, although we've opened both at once, I am going to
start with MBTA communities. We're going to go till we're done with MBTA communities and then move on to the common driveway removing batuminous concrete. Um okay. Um the community scale did get
back to us with changes that we requested. Um, and just again for well, you know, let me pause for a moment because for the board, we talked about this recently
for some prep work at previous meetings, not as the um public hearing, but now it's the public hearing, so I should back up a little. This is about the MBTA community's bylaw.
Um this is certain this the MBTA community's law is certainly a controversial law in this state where the um legislature effectively passed a three-s sentence
law that was then left to be fleshed out and kept getting repeatedly flushed out about increasing what's called missing middle housing. medium density housing. It's worth understanding that what is overall in a
planning sense referred to as medium density housing in Lunenburgg, our densest developments fall within mid density housing because I mean in actual urban environments it can get far denser.
It mandates a certain amount of additional mid-density housing be zoned, excuse me, um, in all communities that have an MBTA MBTA station or are
adjacent to a community with an MBTA station. We are adjacent to Shirley. We are adjacent to Fitsburg. We're adjacent to Lemonster. All of them have T- stops. Therefore, we're subject.
Um, in the, uh, we've been talking this over in different ideas for a couple years. In the spring, we had public info sessions where we presented a few different options to the town. the
overwhelming input from the town's people was to take credit for the hard work we've already done. Lunenburgg is the first comm community was the first
community in the state to pass a 40R smart growth district. Because our district is old enough, we're allowed to use that district as part of our calculations and how we
figure it. Ultimately, the planning board decided to take our 40R district, we know it in town as Tritown, uh that development, and bump up the um units per acre by four from 22 units per
acre is how it's currently zoned to 26 units per acre. Doing this will meet uh meets our state requirements. Um, and the I mean really and that's it. Try
town overall is a wellestablished district. It is well taken care of. It is an a good place. It isn't at risk of immediate redevelopment because economically it doesn't make
sense. You don't bulldoze a successful development to add a few units per acre. That isn't a good use of anyone's funds. That means the changes that are in this
bylaw are not it speaking my opinion but I think others others would echo it are not likely to take place until those buildings are at actual end of life.
We're talking I mean you're easily talking what 30 years there right? So, this isn't a scenario that is likely to um uh to have a big input or big impact on
Lunberg. That was the feedback from the town's people. Go for what's called paper compliance or in this case taking credit for the work we've already done and nice, easy, and smooth sailing.
Now, we have a whole bylaw that gets into all this and has a lot of details because if you're going to make some changes and if there's a potential for change in the future, at least try to do it right.
Uh, we've all seen what happens when people aren't forward thinking. It helps no one. So, I just wanted to give some background on that for all of our friends at home. Um, I'm going to open to the board for some general
comments and thoughts, uh, and once we're kind of satisfied with that, I think I might turn to the public before we do a nitty-gritty deep dive and then we can do our nitty-gritty deep dive. Does that work for everyone up here? It >> does. >> Okay, I'll turn to you, my friends. Do
you have additional things to add? Um, I think I mean without getting into the details, I think our our choice was correct. I mean, we'll see in the future if it is correct or not, but it it makes the most sense. Um, and we can get into
the details later, but >> okay. >> Yeah, I think paper compliance in Lunenburgg makes sense. I I think so people can kind of understand the scale of what we're talking about. the
and maybe maybe tritown's more than this, but the densest development in Lunenburgg that I'm aware of is arrive and that's eight units per acre and the MBTA communities law requires 15 units per acre just so you understand what the
density of scale is. Um, and I think overall the state made an attempt to create housing by mandate. Um, I think that they
did it in a rushed way that doesn't necessarily aid communities and significantly neglects affordable housing. um both capital A and lowercase A affordable. Um capital A would be deed
restricted housing for people who make 80% of the area median income. Um we're restricted to only allowing up to 10%. Uh and I think in places like Lunenburgg, these developments are going
to be less common um because of often lack of sewer capacity or uh the adequate infrastructure and transportation networks to move folks to and from these
in the in the 495 and 128 belt. these are going to become massive luxury condominium developments and I don't know that that particularly serves the housing crisis. Um so that's just my
general editorial. Uh but I in failure to comply as Milton and a dozen other communities have learned is certainly not a reasonable option in my opinion. Um the town of Milton essentially gave
the double freedom rockets to the state and said come and get me. And the attorney general said bet and took them to the court and cut a switch and beat them with it. And the state said now you're going to do it. Uh and there were
about 12 other communities that appealed the state on a variety of other um avenues. It's a unfunded mandate. It's this. It's that. And across the board, the courts all the way up to the SJC
have handed all of them their hats and said, "Now go home and do what the Commonwealth told you to do." Uh, so I understand everybody's desire to tell Boston to pound sand and you don't know what it's like here. But I think that we
have many other issues that could use the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars we would spend fighting that battle. >> Um thank you Adam and that that's a good point. I get into some of this as well.
Um during the info public info sessions last year now a video of that is available on the planning board web page. So you can go there see that public info session. I think the presentation's about 30ish minutes, maybe 40, I don't remember exactly. Um,
but we do talk through everything that got to where we are. And one of the things we do talk through is the carrot and stick approach. And the reality is is kind of the lack of carrot in really big stick approach.
It's if you don't comply, first I said if you don't comply, you won't be a you won't be able to get these grants. And like many towns, we looked at it and said, "Okay, we don't get those very often. Kind of stinks, but it's not worth it for us." Then they kept piling
on grants, and some towns kept saying, "Well, no." And then they said, "And we reserve the right to sue you into compliance." I mean, at some they say you can't fight city hall.
Beacon Hill's bigger and more more well fortified. So, however, that said, we have a plan that looks good for the town. Um, and uh and I should note that Tritown is more dense.
Tritown was zoned at 20 was zoned for up to 22 units per acre was initially built at 17 units per acre and they didn't if memory serves I I haven't looked at this detail in a while. Uh they added
they added some more buildings later. >> No, it was zoned at 18 an acre, wasn't it? Oh, no. It was approved at 18 an acre. Yes, it was built up at 17 and then they eventually expanded it to 20 units per acre. They never even got to
the 22 units per acre is the point. And so we're taking that area that doesn't seem to have demand for it and adding four more units per acre and to 26. And again, if you already have a good
housing solution at 20 units per acre, bumping up that that percentage that uh isn't worth it. It's not worth bulldozing everything and rebuilding for
that percentile increase um that fractional increase. All right. Now, I we have some details in this about how we're going to handle it, but I'm guessing that most comments here aren't about building placement
or about um number of o number of driveways uh entering the road. To that end, I'd like to open public comment. If you are at home and wish to engage in public comment, go ahead and use that
hand raise feature on Zoom. If you can't figure out the hand raised feature, just unmute and say, "Hey, Matt, >> you have something?" >> Yep. But please come on up. >> Hi, Lorraine Rudd, 340 Highland Street. Uh, thank you for your time on this project. I know it was the law. We
didn't have a choice. I don't get it. Um, seemed like a punishment for the towns. I don't know who the who these units are for. Um, our kids can't afford them. Seniors don't want to go in them.
I don't get it. Um, I don't know that towns were able to get that information from the state. I don't know where we're going to go from here. Hopefully, we'll get a new governor next year. I'll, you know, God willing. Uh, this has to be reversed.
Uh, the state shouldn't be pushing towns like this. I believe they have a plan to put a train station in Lunberg. It's coming. So, we will be I've seen it. I saw it. I saw it online.
>> Well, I think it's just to be clear, this is from the Baker administration. So, this was this was approved in in in 20 or 21, right? >> Um during >> I don't know that it will be reversed. I think the >> units aren't intended for anyone
specific. It's a way to create housing. We are in a housing crisis. We're 230 250,000 housing units short of what the the state needs. I don't necessarily know that this is the most appropriate
way to housing. >> What Lunberg needs is housing for seniors, >> housing for young people, young adults. It's not apartments. So anyway, if the state ever wants feedback, please let them know that
>> what they have in mind for us is doesn't fit. >> And I suggest that you always reach out to your local reps and senators and and share that information with them. >> Thank you very much. >> That that's actually what I was going to say is, by the way, friends, a lot of
people have said to me how unhappy they are with the decision the state legislature has made. >> Yeah. Um, if you live in Ludenberg, you are represented, depending where you live, by representative Kushmeik or Representative uh Scarsdale.
And both of them are uh responsive and happy to receive uh they're generally happy to receive communication from their constituents in my experience. That doesn't mean they're going to agree with it, but um I I have
found that they are at least receptive to hearing. And I do think if this is something we don't like, um you're going to want to make it clear to the legislature that top down isn't
doing it for you. If that's the case, and if you love it, tell them that, too. That's allowed. Um >> um on Lockwood 91 Main Street. I have a few questions. So first of all, I haven't seen a map and I just you know
usually like seeing a map exactly where the proposed change changes. >> I >> you're showing me that >> I can where? >> Oh that okay. So just that >> it's a singular parcel. Is it a single? That was my going to be my follow-up. Is
it a single a singular parcel and does that parcel um have more land that they can build? No. Okay. Um >> that was an intentional choice. So yeah, I should this the parcel is and I was
looking cuz I somewhere have that file. I'm looking for it. But it that parcel is tri is tritown Landing. Is that the name of it? Try town. is that development is pretty much maxed out or is maxed out
and um we get to literally just change the zoning on that >> and call it good. >> It isn't we're not opening up new areas for dense development with this. >> My next question is you this is the
development that was called the smart growth, right? Mhm. >> Does so Lunberg receives some money about $20 something,000 a year for because we developed that smart growth. Is that going to go away because now we are reabeling things.
>> But we're not. So the smart growth is an overlay district. So I think I'm I'm going to make assumptions and if I make anybody feel bad, I'm sorry. We're all old in this room. So we all went to school where they had the transparencies that they put on the overlay. So an
overlay zoning district, there's a hard zoning district which is codified on the ground and you take an overlay and it's like a transparency on top of that. So Tritown, the smart growth district is an overlay. So it's laid on top of the hard zoning district and this is another
overlay on top of that. >> So this is an overlay on an overlay. And what overlays do is they give you the option of using the existing hardcoded zoning which is probably I think it's single family residential or the the tri
town or now the multif family overlay. >> Okay. >> So the $200,000 we get I think is optimistic in the time that I worked for the town we got anywhere from 0 to $230,000 and they were all inconsistent numbers
all in between. It's dependent on budget and how many students and it can be up that high but it's not always and this shouldn't have an effect on that because that development that's there was permitted under the smart growth and as
long as we continue to do the 40R um annual reports and file for the 40s payments we should receive them. >> Okay. >> The the development isn't being recoded. We're using the land to overlay this new
zoning on top of. >> Okay. >> And so actually um Anna, if you if you look at the screen at the back of the room, what you can see >> is here you see two overlay districts right there above Young's Road. Okay, you can see Summer Street and then that's the
part of town we're in. And the way they are on this key for this map, um the red horizontal lines are our smart growth district, the 40R district for Tritown and the blue line is the blue uh
perimeter line is our MBTA communities overlay. They're the same place and that area is already developed with a housing project. Not every community could do this, especially to take advantage of a
40R district because we were forward thinking. We get to take advantage of that. So um so we are also now losing the credits for the 40 A4B 10% house affordable
housing that because >> that's about income restriction and it's all rental. So 25% of that development is incomerestricted in perpetuity and so the entirety of the rental
property counts towards right the town's subsidized housing inventory. >> Okay. Um the my other question is did we I know some communities they submit the their proposed bylaw changes to the state to get feedback. Has Lunberg done
that and did we receive feedback from the states regarding the proposed bylaw change as we have it on the reading booklet. >> Um we are in the process of submitting that. Um in this CA so in this case what our we've worked with consultants that
were hired by our pre brought in by our previous planner with grant money and everything. Um they effectively took the model bylaw from the state and filled it in with our details. Now we've gotten back to them
and said, "Hey, we'd like some changes." And that's what you're going to see us discussing up here tonight. a few things about building orientation uh and things like that. >> I think effectively is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence. >> What's that >> said? I think effectively is doing a lot
of lifting in that sentence. >> Did I say the word? I >> you said they have effectively taken the uh the state's model. >> They they have literally taken the states model uh and plugged it. Um >> okay. Because the the concern I would
have and the reason I asked that question is because if we pass this at a in a town meeting >> and it becomes law and then I I you know >> I can give you the next steps there. Let me give you the next steps cuz that that
so town council has expressed um concern is a very strong word. town council. I was speaking with them the other day during office hours and brought up and said, "Huh, I basically I can envision a world where maybe EOHLC,
the housing group, would look at your requirements for building orientation and everything and garages and whatnot and say this is too much and isn't and and makes it no longer by right.
We have it out to EOHLC or we're in the process of getting it out to them to verify because this isn't a big new bylaw. There's a few things to look at. We expect a quick turnaround. >> Okay. >> If we pass this tonight with our own
wording and EOHLC comes back and says, "Actually, you can't have X, Y, and Z." Then we'll have a floor amendment ready to go at town meeting saying, "Hey everybody, here's a couple changes the state wants." >> So you expect to receive the feedback
prior to town meeting >> that we should >> I mean, yes, we should be able Yeah, we expect to. >> Okay. All right. No, that's that's good. >> Has HLC confirmed that they expect that >> that they have they given us a timeline?
No, this is all again because we're also last minute here unfortunately. >> Well, and I only asked because the community I work in did this and they told us to expect 90 days and it took 110. >> Uh the >> and but also we were in the middle of
the busiest period of them doing reviews. So I expect it should be a little bit more streamlined at this point. No, the uh the discussions that I have been privy to have basically said they only have a handful of communities left to check. >> That's >> and of those communities are I mean
we're >> we're very straightforward from that. >> So I want to sort of touch on what your concerns are about if we adopt this and HLC gives us you know the family feud. Um, so
bypassing it and then having it denied, my understanding and what I've heard I've actually has been said to me by people at HLC was if it's passed and there are deficiencies, they're going to be flexible about working with
communities to amend those issues and not consider them out of compliance, But may so they they what happens is we pass this bylaw and we have to file a
a a certification with HLC and there's a whole bunch of information that goes into it and HLC has to do a review and issue a certification or a non-certification and unless the issues are so wildly out
of pocket that they're like you didn't even try >> right >> they're probably not going to issue the lack of certification, they're probably going to reach out to the community and say, "Here's what we find the issues to be. When do you think you can get these corrected? How can we work with you to
do that?" And they may wait until after May Town meeting and say, "All right, you've corrected the issues. You've adopted the new bylaw. Now, just resubmit it as an amendment to the certification packet." So, I'm not particularly even if we don't have their
review by town meeting, I'm not protect particularly concerned about it. Okay. Um, and I understand town council's >> pause. I mean, he's paid to be conservative. Uh, but a lot of the things that we talked about in our bylaw
are in the bylaw that my community that I work in passed and we've received certification from HLC and we're well into a year of having had it. So, okay. I I'm I don't share the same >> concerns. >> And to be >> reservations,
>> to be frank, the reservations he had when I said, well, the almost all of these changes were prop were proposed by you. >> Mhm. >> He he had far less, which far less than the already
>> minimal. Yeah. Than the already minimal he was it. So, I think >> I bring it up for the sake because I know he mentioned it in passing at the select board meeting and I want to make sure we're being completely forthright with the community, but it's one of those situations where bringing it up
almost makes it just by saying the word makes it a bigger deal than it's likely to be. >> No, I understand. Thank you. Um, so my last So, this is a comment. It's not a question, but thank you for answering all my questions. Um, you know, I understand you as a body, you have a
fidiciary duty to comply with the state and what the state does. I don't like as the previous speaker, I don't like the state telling, you know, towns how to zone. I mean, that's that's literally one of our the very few things that towns can do and design and, you know,
understand the implications. Um and you know and ironically if you wanna if you want to have more housing more affordable housing and Lunberg doing a paper compliance doesn't really you know fit that and if you're against the state
telling us what to do you should be also against but you know but I understand your fiduciary duty of doing what you're doing but most importantly I want to give you guys a 10 out of 10 on engaging the public correctly.
you know you have done conversations you have done you asked feedback from the public multiple times like you said um I think last year and you know you heard what people had to say you heard people's uh concern and and this is the way to do it to really engage the public
you know we should not we should not be passing creating bylaws and changing rules about people's house you know in a conference call that's not public to the that's not available to the public to understand that. So you guys have really hit it out of the park in my opinion and
I want to give you guys, you know, 10 out of 10 on that. So thank you and thank you for the work you guys do. It's not I mean planning board's not fun. Sorry. I'm sorry. I don't think it's fun, but I appreciate you guys. So that's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is is it bad to admit I've started
enjoying learning land use? >> I was going to say this is a gas for me. like at some point I started finding >> and I think in response to that I don't think I think this is kind of antithetical to home rule which us New
Englanders really love. Um I do think that this town needs to expand the housing stock and we need to have more than single family homes and we need to have lots that aren't one acre. Uh, but
I think that that's a a larger conversation and I think that there are significant implications to that and I think paper compliance is a way to get the state to leave us alone so that we
can look at alternative methods for achieving what they want us to achieve in a way that's more uh appropriate for the conditions that we have. And actually I would say that um that was
the very strong feedback from the public info sessions was I mean everyone recognizes the housing problem in the state. Everyone in town recognizes the problem. I mean I have two kids.
In 10 years my eldest is going to be graduated from college. What are the odds he's going to be able to afford to move back to his hometown right now? No way in heck. I mean, I can
tell you that I remember when my I I live on Northfield Road and I remember when my wife and I, we were living in Fitchburg, would get into the car, we go to Dicks, get our veggies, and we drive up Northfield Road and say to each other, "It's too bad we'll never be able
to afford to live in Lunberg." I'll tell you what, we got lucky. We eventually did move to town actually right in our dicks. Um, and now, and those houses that we thought we don't know if we don't know if we could ever afford them,
oo, Nelly, since we bought that house, has the property value gone up? And, um, I know we're not the only family in that boat. So, we don't have housing that's we don't
have enough housing that's affordable. And the feedback from the community was, "Yeah, it looks like we do need to get creative, but this isn't the way to do it." The feedback wasn't, "No, create, don't get creative with housing." It was,
"This isn't the way to do it. There's better options." And I I can tell you that coming forward, especially once the master plan is wrapped um because that sentiment is echoed by the community going into the master plan, we're going to have to have those discussions as a
community. But it's really exciting because we've shown a willingness to have those thoughtful discussions and I'm looking forward to that coming up. Glenn, I mean far too long. >> Good evening. Glenn Mloud, 436 Reservoir Road. like to echo the previous
commenters uh um speaker's comments about uh the your approach. I I do think I do appreciate the the frank uh conversations that this board has had as it relates to the municipal building I mean the uh MBTA community act.
Um, you know, it is clear, you know, from from your discussions that the the public is is grappling with with a law that very few people seem to agree with that was brought upon us by those who we have elected to represent us. Um, if so,
I'll just want to ask a question, a clarifying question. I think for any of the public that may be listening for the first time, if you could uh describe exactly how this law that is being um you know forced upon us that we we must
uh adopt, you know, what the um what it places on Lunberg in terms of a unit count as well as describe a little bit about the byite aspect of that unit count. If if we did
the the minimum count that we would have to zone for in Lunenburgg, >> we are so we need to and this is where it's a little tricky because it's not create new is we need to create a zone for
medium density housing that is a total of I could look it up. Is it 240 for us? >> I think it's 240. I think it is. So it's so We'll start at the beginning. The MBTA communities requires
the initial requirement was every one of the 176 MBTA communities. That's everybody who's in the tea service area or adjacent to a town that has a tea or commuter rail station needs to produce a
a zone of a minimum of 50 acres with a parcel no loss no less than 5 acres that allows by right which means without the need for special permit or any other form of
discretionary permit housing at a minimum density of 15 units per acre. And so that was determined in the initial uh regulations ex uh promulgated
by the executive office of housing livable communities. After all the rural communities set their hair on fire and yelled at them, they rolled it back and they looked at it and adjacent rural communities, which
is what Lunberg is. We don't have a station. We're next to a town that does have a station and we have a population. I think it's under 20,000. Um got special dispensation based on their proximity, their housing count, their
population. So that rolled us back to a byite creation of 240 units, which is a minimum of 10 acres. Wait, no, not 10 acres. It's it's a minimum requirement. Um it it didn't put an acreage count on,
I don't think. And so we need to create a bylaw that allows for up to 240 units to be created by Wright with a minimum density of 15 units per acre. It does not require that
those units are ever created. It also does not require that if one were to avail themselves of the bylaw, so in the event we didn't do paper compliance and we picked a a a parcel in town that was
vacant and said, "We're going to do it here and somebody came in and said, gee, 15 units per acre in Lunenburgg, that doesn't make any sense financially. I can do 10 units per acre and I'm going to do this and it's going to sell better." that we would still be in
compliance. So, never does a unit need to be built for the town to be compliant. We just need to have a zoning bylaw that allows it to happen by right, which is essentially pulling a building permit or going through an objective public process, which site plan review
or site plan approval are. >> Um, and also to uh just I pulled up one of the slides from the public info session. So, it is on the screen behind you that lays out this option. Now, I'm going to tell you the existing units and
the described units per acre built out at 14 are incorrect numbers. Uh, when I was putting it together, those just weren't right. And that's where I gave out I don't know the total existing count, but the 17 and 20 I believe are the correct numbers, but it's around there regardless. >> 204.
>> 204. Okay, great. But um again, I also want to call out honor to your point from earlier. You can see there just isn't room for another building. Um but all we've done is change
that and we don't have to add more units. >> So I do agree that that that is a good um a good option to to stall the process. So my follow-up question would be again with the the just going with the parameters of the law requiring
requiring Lunberg to zone for 240 units. It's Could you speak to could we limit that to onebedroom? Could we limit that to 55 and over? >> No, they need to be accessible to families and with no age restriction.
and accessible to families is really kind of a squishy requirement at best. Uh but you can't you can't age restrict and you can't bedroom restrict. >> So is it fair to say that those 240
units would have to be multiple bedroom units? >> Not necess it doesn't say that they have to be. It says you can't require them to be >> you cannot require them to be onebedroom. You can't require them to be
limited to bedroom count, >> right? So, they can be unlimited bedroom count. >> Yes. But once you get into the physical design of a space and if somebody wants to build all five bedroomedroom apartments, there are building code and
health requirements. There are septic or sewage flows that are necessary, and there's a space need. So the higher the bedroom count you get, often the lower number of units you're able to put on an acre based on being able to dispose of
sewage and house people with appropriate light and air requirements and all those types of things. So it becomes kind of a balance for the person developing, >> right? So they have to be family-friendly units, cannot be restricted to one bedroom and um cannot be age restricted.
>> The bylaw cannot restrict them. that wouldn't if somebody decided, I want to get all 24 units per acre and I'm going to make them all onebedroom because that's what I need to do. The town could be like, cool. >> Yeah. >> Uh but we can't tell them that that's what they have to do.
>> And and so if we as a as a a town hypothetically were to say we don't think this is good for Lunberg, the state would take legal action against us and withhold grants. Is that true?
>> They will definitely withhold grants. >> They will definitely withhold grants and I mean history says that they will pursue legal action. >> Right. Thank you very much again. I do appreciate the frank conversation you guys have had the public engagement and
uh as you know specifically specifically to Adam, I appreciate his his guidance and input on this board. I'm sure you guys do as well. As I joked earlier, it really is a commitment because it's it is like a bus driver volunteering on his free time to drive a bus. I really do
appreciate your your uh your input >> and thank you very much. Um, I think it's worth uh it's worth noting as well because it we we're using the term familyfriendly a lot and in this case it's worth noting now we're
going for paper compliance so it's largely irrelevant. Familyfriendly being a term of design not a term of practicality. Even if
we if we had decided to go on a different route and we're just said, great, we're going to zone for 240 brand new units. Does that mean you're going to get close to 240 new families moving
in? No. Because overall the data and experience is pretty clear that when people move to a town like Lunenburgg, when f if a family's going to move to Lunenburgg, they're not looking at
dense housing. Now, would there be exceptions? Certainly. But that doesn't mean even in that case that you're definitely going to be adding families. More, sure, but it doesn't mean you're getting all families. It's a term of design so that
a family could choose. In practice, many people who are going to move into that density with a family aren't going to pick Lunberg. They're going to pick more urban because if you're coming to Lunberg with a family, you're likely aiming for that a different lifestyle.
All right. Do we have any other public comment? Seeing none in the room, seeing none on Zoom, um I'm going to steer the board discussion into details now. And if you
frankly, it's still a public hearing. It I'm not really planning on asking for more public comment tonight, but that doesn't mean you're not welcome to give public comment. Just flag me down. Um, I just don't think we're in the
exciting part now. >> Alrighty. >> Hey, board. >> Is the warrant going to print? >> I do not know that date off the top of my head. So, if we have changes, we can certainly make them and I can try to get
them in before print. >> Okay. Um, and if not, then they would end up a floor amendment. >> Well, I guess we got a grant for this consultant, right? We didn't spend our own money. >> Correct. >> Good.
Um so you know a b purpose establishment applicability definitions those are fine. Um my my first issue is under permitted
uses and the accessory uses. And if I talk too much Amanda just tell me to shut up so you can say what you need to say. >> No please. Um, why why why are we referencing uses in the
underlying zone in connection to this development and this special overlay district. We're creating a connection to the underlying zoning that I I don't think is
beneficial. Um, we essentially are allowing multif family units up to 26.1 units per acre. So, we should just define whatever accessory uses we think should be in
there. Um, and I think I had made this comment previously and it frustrates me that it's still phrased this way. Mhm. >> Um parking accessory buildings for storage of maintenance equipment, bicycles,
uh garages, whatever. Um I don't think there's any other accessory uses that we would want in this development. No one's raising chickens, which would be an allowed use in the underlying zoning. Um, you know, I think if we had 26 units
raising a chicken or two on their patio, that might get really interesting really quickly. Um, so I I don't want to tie the overlay district to the base zoning. Um, I I don't think
it helps us. So you're you are saying that you feel we should um in terms of just very practical what we would do on the page. >> Correct.
>> Remove uh section B1. >> Correct. No, no. D2. >> Thank you. >> B2B >> D. >> I wish the pages were numbered. >> Permitted. >> Feel like Matt Allison now. Yep. Okay. D2B.
Yes. >> As of right accessory use is appropriate to the above permitted use per section 3 of the zoning bylaw for uses allowed as of right or special permit in the underlying zoning. >> As of right accessory uses are as
follows. Boom boom boom boom boom. And I don't even think a storage shed is an accessory use. It's an accessory building. That's part of the primary use. I mean, I started to open the the bylaws and
>> Okay. So, >> just so we I could give you examples of what didn't make sense to me. >> That's fair. I am How do you turn on track changes in Word? >> Uh, go to review. >> Review. Thank you.
>> I should know that, but I don't. >> You never have any changes in your documents. I'm >> an English professor. I should know how to do that. >> Okay. So, what I I've made a copy in the
um I've I've made a copy of it and I'm going to start editing. >> Okay. >> Um it is the same document title followed by edits >> just so everyone knows. I'm happy to handle that as we go. But um so you're
saying delete D2B, correct? >> Yes. Well, or or modify it to and see that's the thing. Section three of our zoning bylaw has nothing to do with accessory uses.
>> Article 4 is accessory uses 250 for uh and it's sort of outlined throughout the 4.1. So again, I mean, we're we're paying for something that we're not getting.
I agree. I I will admit I am kind of at the point of as much as I want it to be quality and I do think it's worth making changes. >> Yes. I I I just want it to get passed. >> Yeah. I I am at the point of good enough is going to be good enough because as
much as I don't like handing problems to the future. >> Um >> this is one that that's not >> I yeah I I don't disagree >> handing handing problems to people who
will be working on this after I am well into retirement or dead. um and leaving it like as at some point I'm willing to look at it and say okay I've we've done what we can and yeah I wish we could be
better but >> no I >> circumstances have put us in a tighter spot >> I can't not be pnicity and prickly about bylaws so >> I understand that so I am sharing my view but ultimately I will be the first to say I'm going to lean heavily on you
for recommendations because you are a professional and absent someone sitting to the right of me >> who were paying for that role, you offering to do it for free is um a a gift horse whose mouth I dare not look in.
>> Um you know the next I just I think we should either delete it and just have no accessory uses which I think is probably the cleanest way to do it. >> That's what So I have deleted that then. Okay. >> Okay. Um
>> I can you know what let me share. >> So my next comment is on G 2I. So if you have anything before that. No I'm just looking quickly.
Okay. I'm going I'm going to uh >> Looks like you have another notification too. >> Uh like I have a notification. >> I'm just looking at your screen in the back. >> I don't have that note. That is >> PA's view, not mine.
>> Oh, I see. >> Uh my view is here. So, no. Yeah, that's confusing. But I will share my screen then as we make edits. just I have to edit I can't edit in word I have to edit in the web browser
because of >> stuff because word is my account the web browser is the town's account and god forbid >> yep so G2
I which is storm water management >> G2I I >> the final sentence says additional requirements under the town of Lunenburgg MS4 permit. The developer would not be complicit in
the town's MS4 permit because that governs the town's municipal separate storm sewer system. They would be complicit in the town's storm water bylaw. And that's what this should read is that oh it is in there as amended and
if applicable. Okay. This that's what I get for trying to read this on my phone. That's fine. >> Was that you very quiet quietly correcting him? Cuz that's what it sounded like and that was uh >> Yeah. I didn't even say anything.
>> Oh, see you're in my dead ear. So I get >> I think they were leaving. >> Oh, okay. That I >> No, she told me to shut up. I had it wrong. >> Oh, no. Last one. I hear quiet feminine voices. I do not have directional hearing cuz I only have one ear that
works. Therefore, I'm like, "Oh, it must be >> I think it might have been Mr. Mloud. I believe he was the >> I usually associate Mr. Mloud with a quiet feminine voice." That that is in fact a frequent descriptor I use for him never. Okay. Um,
my next comment is just my own mania, so we can skip that. >> Your own >> No, don't skip it. >> It It's It's G 4, which is the building shared outdoor space. Multif family housing shall have
common outdoor space. Oh, that all residents can access such that's fine. I had can be equally accessible for all residents. Again, I I did most of this quickly on my phone before the meeting. So, um
>> did did you want equally accessible? >> No, cuz it's in there cuz it which all residents can access. Oh, okay. >> That's that's fine. >> Um then we jump down to six for waiverss. >> Mhm. I think that should say that may
wave the requirements of section 25419G, general development standards, with a finding that the requested waiverss serve a public good. Okay. Um, what I think I will do is
>> that works cuz that makes it big enough. >> Mhm. >> That you can read it from >> Yeah. >> Okay. And I just think that just arbitrarily saying we can wave them doesn't >> and and this isn't necessarily an objective standard and I understand it
can be problematic, but I think having something in there for the board to lean on gives >> I was about to say I it sends a communication to future boards what we are looking what we mean. >> Yeah. Um,
under J, which is site plan review, I asked that to be approved. >> Okay. Well, I was going to say there's an inconsistency cuz it says approval in some places and review in others. So, I just want consistency. I don't care what you call it.
Do we have any concern that site plan approval will not be interpreted as by right? Which feels dumb to me. I've heard that concern brought up. It doesn't feel good to me cuz we do site plan approval on by uses all the time.
>> Correct. It's it it's an it's as long as there are objective standards. >> Okay. I am going to part of the problem is this doesn't give any real standards. Um, but how do you spell approval? Let's pretend
I know how to spell words. Is it two P's or one? >> Two P. >> It is. I'm like, wait, it's red. It's got a red underline. Yes, because it's attached to another word because of how this got how the edit works.
>> I I really don't like J2B. It's just so mealymouthed. like it it doesn't give us any real teeth to require submission. Um I think
it's probably late in the game and it's probably good enough for what we're talking about, but um it's appalling that someone would write this as the standards for what gets submitted for site plan review.
Okay, I will be there in a moment. I am still going through every instance I can find of the word review and putting in approval because counting on myself later to get that correct is >> you just do a find.
>> Yeah, I was going to say that >> I am going to do that, but I'm going I'm trying to do it visually first just because of the >> You're on a roll. >> Yeah, >> I get it. Oh, I say what I did. Lindsay, my blushing bride, has observed
over the years that I work on a queue. First, my brain is absolutely first in, first out. So once I start a task a certain way, I'm going to keep doing it until I'm done because it is just >> wonderful.
>> The spicy brain version of >> uh very much >> how you work. >> Yes. Okay. And because she was a CS major, um Q's and first in first out are very >> Yeah.
apt descriptors in my house there. I can do a check later to make sure we got them all, but that's fine. Um, and you said you also had a concern with which section? >> Uh, no. I mean, two J2B I have a
concern. I think it's just a point >> really poor >> site plans that show the position of the building on the site, points of vehicular access to and from the site and vehicular circulation on the site, storm water management utilities and
landscape treatments include Oh my god, would you stop popping up your extra I don't know why everywhere I click it brings up that same box. Um, I mean, my issue is that it
doesn't give standards for what's on the plan, who does what. And again, I'm again being picky. And at this point, it's good enough because we I would spend three hours here with us, >> okay, >> pariting out what needs to be in there. And I don't want to do that. And you
don't want to do that. >> At 10 at uh 10:30, we have to have a vote regardless. >> Correct. And I know I would lose that. Um, I would look I I'll sit here till 2 in the morning making changes if we want. She's the one
we got to convince. >> We would overrule her. >> Oh, >> exactly. >> No, I I think Do we not still need quorum? Oh, we do. She could just get >> Listen, I'll walk out. I've said that before. I will walk out. >> I don't care. >> And that that's really the the long and
short of it for here. I mean, I could get really, really technical and specific, but I think we're at a point where we're good enough to get where we need to be. Um, I will point out that we are now definitely at the point that Mr.
Mloud is the remaining public. Um, not just in this room, but online. So, uh, I actually do want to take that as a moment though to turn to the board and say
evidence we've done it right in all seriousness and I want to turn to the board and I want to turn out to the previous iterations of this board um, to Mr. Allison who's not on the
board any longer to Mr. Wilsmore who's not here tonight and Mr. Mloud who was on the board for part of this and then betrayed us to join the select board. Um but what I really um he was smiling
when I said that you all at home can't see it. It's okay. Um, but I really want to sincerely say thank you to the board members here, to the previous board members for engaging in this process the way we
did. It shows trust in the community that we haven't wrapped up the public hearing or trust from the community that we haven't wrapped up for the public hearing for MBTA community bylaw and there's very few people here. I
actually take often I wish there were more. I get it. They >> people have said they're peace and they feel comfy. >> Um we're lucky and we're lucky to have this town. >> All right. Um
Amanda, do you have any other thoughts on this? >> I don't I appreciated what Adam said um about was it D2B? Um that makes sense. I think that one was a little vague when it says as a
right accessory. So, I think either omitting that piece or making it more specific makes sense. >> I think we killed that. >> Yeah, I think you killed it. >> I did. Okay, great. Yeah. No, I'm good with that. Um,
yeah. So, do we uh Okay. So, do we want uh I'll ask for I'll solicit public comment one more time before we talk about being done with it. Is there any more public comment, Glenn?
Now he's not getting up. We're safe. Um okay. And I'll totally admit, Adam, I knew you'd be here, so I didn't bother looking up the proper procedure um on this one. So, >> well, I move we close the hearing on the
MBTA communities >> and we still close them. Okay. So, >> second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? I >> uh I move that the planning board recommend favorably to town meeting the
adoption of >> Why did I put it away? Um section 250419 the multif family overlay district >> second. >> Move and seconded. All in favor? I
>> I >> um I made some edits here tonight. We may be able to get Do we have to make any motion to get that as our version into the warrant? >> I I'll amend my motion to be as as amended tonight. >> Okay. And if it can't make it into the
warrant, we can bring it to town meeting and do it on the floor. >> Okay. Second. Yep. All in favor? I >> I >> Woo. All right. That is good. That is all set. I will um
tomorrow morning I will I believe it's tomorrow. Let me just because I want to do it ASAP if we can. Okay. Yeah. tomorrow morning I can get that together and send it over to Jen if we can. And if not, then we'll have it
ready for a floor amendment. >> I mean, it needs to be in the mail by the six. No, I'm sorry, the 4th because it needs to be No, it needs to land on the 4th because we need to get it 14 days before.
>> So, I'm betting we're past print. >> We My guess is it's at print. >> Past. We are past print. So, this would be a floor amendment. >> That's fine. >> That's f I don't think there'll be >> um Yeah, I don't expect that will be an issue. Okay, great.
>> Killing that. I'm going to pull up our warrant article change and I'm going to put it on the screen nice and big for those who watch this later at home or those who are watching now but aren't on Zoom.
And for YouTube as well, I'm going to make it a little bigger. There we go. Um, deleting again for the sake of our friends at home because the board has talked about this at a meeting previously. just kind of came up as, oh,
we should do that. Um, in our original conception for the common driveways bylaw that came out year yearish ago, um, we originally weren't intending to
require pavement for the common driveways. It found its way in through various res revisions, changes, and planners. Not a problem. But when an applicant came forward and was like, "We have to do this." We were surprised. The goal
wasn't to do that because frankly, it can be more affordable on a really long common driveway to do gravel or something, and that's fine. >> It can also be more environmentally friendly. It can be a more
rural appearance. There's a lot of reasons that you could use a variety of surface treatments that would would meet the standard in the first sentence. Um, and those are go those examples are going into my like one slide presentation for this.
>> And yeah, so it's just getting rid of the 3-in minimum thick thickness of batuminous concrete or as you would say, as most of us would say, just black topper asphalt. That's it. I'm going to welcome public comment.
hearing none. A few of us have been wondering if this could be the sleeper controversial one somehow. Like there's always that surprise like wouldn't it be a real surprise if this was the controversy at town meeting? Well, I I think the the benefit of having that, if one were
to make an argument for it, would be it would likely restrict development because it would impose a cost that would damage developers profits or require that they build units that were wildly priced above what was reasonable
in other places. at the cost of frankly more storm water issues which is >> yeah I I don't I don't know that it's a great argument >> but yeah no I hear you fair >> all right >> board do we have any discussion on this
>> n I move we close the public hearing on the common driveway amendment >> second >> moved and seconded all in favor >> I I >> I move that we recommend favorably to town meeting the passage of the removal of language from the common driveways
bylaw. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? I >> I. >> All right, that would be our public hearings. Give me one moment to rejigger my
windows. There we go. Okay, we have no decisions to look at night tonight. Board discussions. Uh again, we removed from the agenda the APDC Historical Commission because that's not going to be on the warrant.
Um two quick board discussions for tonight. First one, do we want to meet 3 days before Christmas? >> Uh no, I won't be in town. >> I'm fine with that. I don't know if I'll be in town, but if I am in town, I'm like leaving the next day. So
great. I assumed that would be the answer, but rather than presuming, I wanted to turn to the board and I knew I could email, but I also knew I could just ask us here. >> Um, great. And um
the next item on the agenda is certificate of vote authorizing signatures pursuant to MGLC uh 110g. So I brought this up, Mr. Chair, and um
I guess I'll I'll start with we may want to wait until at least Mr. Wilsmer is here. Um, do we have any idea if we'll have another member anytime soon? >> I I could check with the uh I believe >> I So there was planned for us to have
there is at least one application to my knowledge. >> Okay. in for the talent bank. We had plans to have a joint meeting with the select board that I think failed failed to materialize just to due to the
>> chaos of everything else going on. >> Um so I don't know where that stands if if there are still people who are interested or not. I can follow up on that. >> We should because I think it would be great to have five folks vote on this.
Um but what this would do is um through COVID the Commonwealth and the registries set forth that municipal boards can digitally sign approvals and have them
become recordable at the registry. Uh but the town needs to adopt the language in this certificate of vote that um I sent to Jen uh from the town of Sudbury. So I I would put forward that this may
be a beneficial thing for this board to adopt. Um especially having seen the trouble with not having folks in the office or having decisions prepared on time for meetings. Um, it removes some of that necessity because we only have
14 days in some instances to record our decision after the vote has been made. And this would allow us to sign at our leisure and get those those back out to the clerk uh within that time period. Uh, and it would I believe the town is
moving towards a docuign or something similar to that and it would allow us to use that to endorse our decisions. Um, I love that because getting people in to sign docks is hard and I don't fault
anyone for that. Swinging by town buildings during business hours >> isn't always easy. Um, I don't think I can't think of why this would be controversial.
I'm >> I don't think it is. >> Yeah. I Yes, we could wait for Tim. We could wait till we have another board member. We also have quorum here tonight. True. >> And if three of us agree >> Mhm. >> that's enough to make decisions
and I'm going to gamble that um >> Tim that Mr. Wils will not be upset about it. And if he is and has a really good point, we could vote later and change it. >> Okay. Um, and I'm not going to
one person who may or may not be on the committee in the future, and I don't know who it is. I'm just not >> That's fair. >> I'm not worried about that. Again, if they have a concern, we can revisit the vote, but I think it's much more likely. Well, we can just save time and move forward.
>> Okay. Um, what is the do we what is the do we just need to vote saying we do want to do this and then >> Yeah, we need to make a motion and then vote. >> Well, if someone knew the motion to make. So I move that the Lunberg
Planning Board recognizes and accepts the provisions of MGL chapter 1G regarding electronic signatures and that its members will henceforth execute documents either with electronic signatures or with wet ink ink wet ink
signatures and that both will carry the same legal weight and effect. >> I will second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? I >> I >> Okay, great. Um, full agreement. That makes sense.
>> Um, abuing community notices. You saw something in the SharePoint. Don't worry about it. Um, that was uh one abuing community notice came in and uh Brian just put it in because he went, "Oh, you have a section for that."
And it's completely I don't even remember what it is, but it is in is inconsequential to life in Lunenburgg. >> Okay. >> So when you look in the file and see it, it's >> Yeah. >> Um Okay. Committee reports. Master Plan Steering Committee. I can say that last
week the master plan steering committee had its final public info session. Um there were 16 members of the public there. Many of them also members of the steering committee. Unsurprising, but not all of them. Not at all. Um, and
I've I and the I mean there's some more discussions to be had, but overall I I can tell you that the input from the town's people remains consistently in the same
direction and consistently from day one delightfully unsurprising. >> Lunenburgg doesn't have enough housing. that's affordable. Lunberg could do more to keep housing uh to keep seniors in housing where appropriate. Lunberg could
stand to have its walkable areas be more walkable. We love our farms. We understand the future of farming will likely look different. Um it would be good to have economic growth. Uh and and it gets more specific
than that. Um, but it it is all very much it reflects those of us who have been plugged into the town. It's what we've seen. It's what we know the community feels overall. Um,
there's still some more steps to go. They're still bringing in feedback from some of the boards. They would love ours. They know that we're not I'm going to try to get us to look at their questions again and talk about it a little more at our next meeting. I made it clear to them we weren't doing it
tonight and that full agreement from them. They understand that we had other fish to fry. >> Um that process is overall moving forward well. The master plan is going to have a lot of general recommend from
discussions with the consultants with overunder etc. Over under in associates and RKG I mean they're all contributing. I should name them all by name. Um, but to my understanding, we're going to
be looking at a final document that has a lot of recommendations that doesn't have a lot of hyperspecific recommendations. And that's fine and good. Um, in part because wow, the sands
are shifting fast and they're going to keep doing that as development comes. Uh even as we've talked about being the third fastest growing state or community in the state, we have been for a long time. Don't know for sure, but suddenly looks
like we're not development slowed down. >> We're all the easy land is gone. >> Yep. And um there's different economic pressures on the developers. I don't know what you're seeing otherwise, but that
>> and that may change. It may not. Um people are developing whatever they can get where I work because okay >> the average home value the the median home >> assessment is 1.3 >> so there's a fair amount of incentive
for a builder to find a piece of land and build something >> if we can get the medium home assessment in Lunberg to 1.3 Lindsay and I can retire early um well if we move Um, did you share my feedback with
>> I have I have not had a sit down with them since and so that's now upcoming. Okay. Um, >> again there's with sincere apologies to the board but it it is only so much of an apology. I have hit the limits of what one human
can be doing and >> yeah it was more of a curiosity. Um, >> oh, I understand that, but I want to be forthright and that's Ramy and I are working on re on kind of getting back together and chatting more, but um
I have hit the limit of hours in the day and energy a human body can produce. Um but overall there's been positive moves forward and that committee is getting
feedback and I think while I and others have at times struggled with it can be hard to discuss planning with a group of citizens who don't live and breathe it and me being one of the ones educating them is great
except as we know I only play planner on TV. >> In the real world, I'm just a guy who likes to wear blazers. Um, but we're getting there. Open Space Committee.
I don't know if they've met, but I shared that the news from them, and we'll hear from them next meeting. Municipal Building Design Committee um has continued to meet. We are this week touring the town
buildings um to bit to to see the offices functioning. >> Yes, this happened before, but there's new people on the committee. >> I was going to say it's like the hit parade. It's got it's I think we're on the third cycle of this. >> I know. Um
a lot of the thought right now describe to us what the general thought was before. Mhm. >> about likely something like turn first floor into open meet open convertible meeting space. This might be >> pack. >> Mhm.
>> Turn Ritter into a straightup twotory structure. Um the schools have voiced a feeling that they would rather not be colllocated with town government. >> Okay. Um well so the trick is that the
schools need the ACE program >> colllocated with the director of special services because the director of special services is the overseer for that program. >> Um and again understandably the superintendent would like the director
of special services colllocated with her >> makes sense. but then working the ACE program, which is a program that's more about daily living in a house and whatnot, into the same building as town services.
>> Um, less so. And the new superintendent has voiced that she would rather be colllocated with schools and kids, >> which I've heard arguments in both directions from superintendent over the years, and that's perfectly valid. I mean, yes.
So, um, there's talk about basically could we do the project a lot smaller by getting rid of the annex at Ritter and turning because the annex creates so many problems >> and turn it in with a similar footprint
overall but into a two-story structure all the way across. Um, the big feedback is no more lifts, elevators. If we're going to build a build, and there seems to be universal agreement on
that. If we're going to be build buildings, we're we should be even if we're trying to save money, we need to be shelling out for actual elevators because the uh the people who need that accessibility
feature deserve to actually ride in something that feels safe and like it won't break down. M >> that lift gets stuck a lot. >> Uh this one in the corner was down for a few weeks is my understanding. So
>> my former colleague had been stuck in both multiple times. >> Yeah. So but it's not it's not just oh we should get a new one. It's no it should be an elevator. Right. Um and there is a strong feeling in that
committee that we should be putting excess at least from some members and there's not push back against it. Accessibility should be at the forefront of our thoughts. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um not just let's be not just let's meet ADA which is robust now but
>> let's do it in a way. >> Yes. >> Which I'm all for. Um so there's progress there. I sure hope we come to a meaningful decision. I
Anyway, we'll see. Um, capital Planning Committee begins capital planning season on in earnest on Wednesday night. That's when we begin hearing all the uh feedback from departments.
And it is understood that despite our efforts to be a capital planning committee, this year we will be much more of a capital ranking committee again because there's enough other moving parts. Um the committee continues to want to make that shift and we keep
taking baby steps but in practice there's a lot going on. Economic Development Committee had a wonderful meet town government meet and greet. Very successful. Um
it was really nice to see the schools made a point of having a presence there. Multiple police officers showed up. And what this is just showing is it's they've managed to make an event
that town government values and that the business community values. We did have new upand cominging business owners there. We had um established business owners there. There were business owners saying um
hey, you know what? I'd like to be the business that hosts this next year. So, congratulations to uh Josie Gil Gilchrist as the uh this is her brainchild and she's now the chair of the EDC
and congratulations to the rest of the EDC. This is this has I mean three years in a row everinccreasing relevancy. It's become a thing in town and the feedback from the town government people and from the business owners and potential business owners is that they really
appreciate it. Um, stormwater task force. Tim's not here. MRPC, we have not been able to go to meetings for you. >> That's okay. It's all right. There's two more for the rest of the year. So, okay. November and December. And then I can
start doing them again. >> Yep. And then >> Thanksgiving. >> No, it's Right. >> No, it's the week before, right? >> No, I think it's MBC is the first Thursday. >> Oh, the first. I thought it was the third. >> Mm-m. First Thursday.
>> So, it's next week. >> Yeah, >> maybe I can make that one. I'll look and see. Um, >> I'll send an email once I get that. >> Okay. The um Montichus Marijuana Cigarette Transportation Committee. Oh, sorry.
Joint Transportation Committee. >> Look, it's 8:30. I got news. I'm >> cooked. >> Yeah, you you've got punch punch drunk me. Dear friends who don't know, punch drunk is a term for when you're silly because you're tired, not because you're
actually drunk. I feel like >> or punched. >> Oh my gosh. They're gonna Somebody's going to watch this and be like, "The planning board is off the rails." >> I am off. I got news. Um, they haven't watched our many of our other meetings. Then this is
how I talk. But please go on. >> Um, we met earlier this month. nothing uh pertinent to Lunberg. A lot of other towns having work done. Um George
Cahaley Cahale from Mart retired. >> Oh. >> Uh officially, so there's that little bit of news. Happy trails to George. >> Good for him. >> Um yeah, other than that, not much to report. >> Okay, great. Um minutes approval. We uh
there's minutes listed, but when I was again when I was putting them in today, I saw some critical information was missing, such as who made some motions, and I certainly did not have the time to go back and watch videos to figure it out. So,
uh until we have someone go through and do that, it will happen as quickly as reasonable. meeting schedule. Um, upcoming meetings include November 10th, November 24th,
and December 8th are our final three meetings for the year. Do we want or need I don't think we do myself, but I'm asking, do we want to schedule a meeting for immediately before
special town meeting to discuss our bylaws if we need to? I don't think we we we will need to >> I don't think we'll need to >> see >> I don't know that I could make it directly before either. >> Okay, I'm fine with that. Um
there are times that we've had bylaws and held that option. I I don't see the need >> or value in this case. Um board comment concerns. I am going to be moving a board comment to the start of the meeting as well. I don't know why
it's not there. It always feels weird we bring this up only at the end. Um but yeah, board comment or concerns. >> Uh November 24th meeting I might not be able to attend. >> Okay. >> I'll probably know more by the November 10th meeting. Is
>> that the Monday before Thanksgiving? >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Um >> Chicago >> I'd like if we can as a group maintain the meeting that would be good. Yeah. Uh we'll see just because we're trimmed a lot of meetings this year due to
calendar like this time of year due to calendar. >> Uh I might suggest that we shift the 8th to the 15th if we can do that. H >> if we're not going to do the 22nd to not create a long gap between December and January,
>> that could make a lot of sense. Um >> I'm not necessarily adamant about it. I just a >> Oh, no. No, it makes sense. Um >> be a singular meeting in December. >> Let me Yeah, I will. If you if if you
would send out an email at some point and say we we're not going to meet on the 22nd, does this make sense to everybody? >> Mhm. >> Not to assign you duties, but >> I that is like unlike much of what I've had to do. Um that is squarely within
the job I'm actually supposed to do. Like that is literally one of the few things in my job description. Um um are you done with your comments and concerns? >> That's it. Yep. >> So I I know I said earlier in just that
we should tell the bylaw committee that we want to rewrite the whole bylaw. Um that wasn't necessarily justest. I I really do think that our bylaw is a hot mess and really does need to be scrapped
and rebuilt. Um I don't I agree. I don't think that's in the bylaw committee's realm, but I also think that putting it on in written record and giving folks an understanding of why it
needs to be done is important and can give us some credence in the years to come to getting money from town meeting or other sources to hire a consultant to do that cuz it's not a job I think would
make sense to do inhouse. >> What I'd like to do is I will put together something written for next meeting. >> Okay. >> And then we can look at it if we make any changes we want vote and I will send that on to them. >> Okay.
>> Um and that way we can get that ball rolling cuz I am in full agreement and they because that's going to be a bigger project with consultants etc. But yes, and as soon as we have someone sitting here,
um I believe yeah, I've told this all in email, but just saying it for the public, too. Um Richard Harris is again being employed by the town as our interim consultant, uh interim land use manager.
Um, and I mean what we stopped working with him previously only due to limits on how many hours he could work for the town, not out of >> Yeah. >> like any problem with that working relationship.
And so he is back same as we didn't go right back to him because he had things that prevented him from working with for the town for a bit. Um, >> and he is available. So, we are working with him and uh with the calendar year switching coming
up, that should buy us a good amount of time. >> All right. And I'm always hopeful that we'll fill this soon. I think go back to the agenda. That is it. Unless there's other board comment or concerns. >> Great to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I I friends. It is 8:41. Thank you for joining us tonight. I hope you have a wonderful evening and we'll see you in a couple weeks. Take care.